Mike yeadon watch



ravydavygravy said:
Anyone seen Mike lately? Pretty sure he took himself of twitter after someone found loads of racist dirt on him. :lol:

Looks like his old enemies at sage are having the last laugh anyhoo.

Wonder if @Charlie Chimp has seen him?
Click to expand...

Heard nothing from Mike or his fans on here.

The narrative is now all about how lockdown is harmful, before it was COVID has disappeared and before that it was COVID won’t become a problem.
 
ravydavygravy said:
You forgot Oldies favourite bollocks - false positives.

Or as Mike concluded - stop testing and covid goes away. :lol:
Click to expand...

Nope, I said the PCR test threshold was too high, it seems the WHO had similar sort of thoughts in the middle of January 🤔

www.who.int

WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Date: 13 January 2021 WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2 Target audience: laboratory professionals and...
www.who.int www.who.int
 
SAFCOldie said:
Nope, I said the PCR test threshold was too high, it seems the WHO had similar sort of thoughts in the middle of January 🤔

www.who.int

WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Date: 13 January 2021 WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2 Target audience: laboratory professionals and...
www.who.int www.who.int
Click to expand...

Imagine pretending that a) you understand this and b) you independently thought of it before the WHO
 
SAFCOldie said:
I was on about it ages ago, always research the diagnostics, its basic thinking.
Click to expand...

You mentioned the word PCR no earlier than August 2020, and in October made the following post, alleging that PCR cycles were above 45:

SAFCOldie said:
This will be absolutely true, have you seen how the test works ? They need to reduce the cycle down from 45 if they want a truer picture of infectious people and the threat at hand, I think a few countries have done this already.
Click to expand...

However, 40+ cycles is against PHE guidance:

www.gov.uk

Cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR

A guide for health protection teams about interpreting Ct in real-time, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays performed for Sars-CoV-2.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

and the ONS reported in September of 2020 they had only a single record of a positive test above 37 cycles

COVID-19 PCR positive test results with Cycle Threshold - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk
Additionally this FOI gem Public Health Wales shows that 99.5% of PCR tests carried out in Wales were 40 cycles or fewer

FOI 537.pdf

www.whatdotheyknow.com www.whatdotheyknow.com
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
You mentioned the word PCR no earlier than August 2020, and in October made the following post, alleging that PCR cycles were above 45:



However, 40+ cycles is against PHE guidance:

www.gov.uk

Cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR

A guide for health protection teams about interpreting Ct in real-time, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays performed for Sars-CoV-2.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

and the ONS reported in September of 2020 they had only a single record of a positive test above 37 cycles

COVID-19 PCR positive test results with Cycle Threshold - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Probably a mistype, 35. Either way explain the new WHO guidance on this?
 
SAFCOldie said:
Probably a mistype, 35. Either way explain the new WHO guidance on this?
Click to expand...

You sure about that? 35 is within guidance. Please explain your rationale and provide evidence.

The WHO guidance is simply a reminder to use the test manufacturer’s recommended upper cycle threshold, as explained here by Reuters

www.reuters.com

Fact check: WHO released guidance on proper use of tests; it did not admit PCR tests showed inflated infection numbers

Social media users have been sharing screenshots purporting that the World Health Organization (WHO) released guidance to laboratories and incorrectly saying this was to reduce the positive test result count in PCR (polymerase chain reaction) COVID-19 tests. The social media...
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
You sure about that? 35 is within guidance. Please explain your rationale and provide evidence.

The WHO guidance is simply a reminder to use the test manufacturer’s recommended upper cycle threshold, as explained here by Reuters

www.reuters.com

Fact check: WHO released guidance on proper use of tests; it did not admit PCR tests showed inflated infection numbers

Social media users have been sharing screenshots purporting that the World Health Organization (WHO) released guidance to laboratories and incorrectly saying this was to reduce the positive test result count in PCR (polymerase chain reaction) COVID-19 tests. The social media...
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
Who knows, the test was flawed, they've corrected it now but why the delay in realising this?
 
SAFCOldie said:
Who knows, the test was flawed, they've corrected it now but why the delay in realising this?
Click to expand...

So you have no reason then.

All tests are flawed btw. There are no perfect tests.

It’s worth pointing out to you that all but one positive test in England was 37 cycles or fewer, and 99.5% of all tests in Wales were 40 cycles or fewer, so assuming the number of cycles follows a Gaussian distribution we can assume the vast, vast majority are 35 cycles or fewer.

It’s simply a reminder to stick to manufacturer-recommended limits.

I’d advise you to quit now whilst you only look as foolish as you normally do.
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
So you have no reason then.

All tests are flawed btw. There are no perfect tests.

It’s worth pointing out to you that all but one positive test in England was 37 cycles or fewer, and 99.5% of all tests in Wales were 40 cycles or fewer, so assuming the number of cycles follows a Gaussian distribution we can assume the vast, vast majority are 35 cycles or fewer.

It’s simply a reminder to stick to manufacturer-recommended limits.

I’d advise you to quit now whilst you only look as foolish as you normally do.
Click to expand...

I love it when you talk dirty :lol:
 
Frijj said:
So you have no reason then.

All tests are flawed btw. There are no perfect tests.

It’s worth pointing out to you that all but one positive test in England was 37 cycles or fewer, and 99.5% of all tests in Wales were 40 cycles or fewer, so assuming the number of cycles follows a Gaussian distribution we can assume the vast, vast majority are 35 cycles or fewer.

It’s simply a reminder to stick to manufacturer-recommended limits.

I’d advise you to quit now whilst you only look as foolish as you normally do.
Click to expand...
Whatever pal, I just don't want anything to do with this ritual....we need 3 weeks to flatten the curve, remember that..its coming up to the anniversary of that nonsense.
 
SAFCOldie said:
Whatever pal, I just don't want anything to do with this ritual....we need 3 weeks to flatten the curve, remember that..its coming up to the anniversary of that nonsense.
Click to expand...

The ritual where you post COVID-sceptical drivel, get called out, try and change the subject etc, yeah?

You’re 46 years old. Grow up.
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
The ritual where you post COVID-sceptical drivel, get called out, try and change the subject etc, yeah?

You’re 46 years old. Grow up
Click to expand...
Largely accurate drivel if you don't mind. Anyway it's all done and dusted in May... Isn't it? If not, why not?
 
ravydavygravy said:
Anyone seen Mike lately? Pretty sure he took himself of twitter after someone found loads of racist dirt on him. :lol:

Looks like his old enemies at sage are having the last laugh anyhoo.

Wonder if @Charlie Chimp has seen him?
Click to expand...
Rings a bell. I think he had loads of islamophobic tweets going back a couple of years. Obviously claimed to have been hacked and had the likes of Julia Hatley jumping to his defence. Although they couldn't address how he'd been hacked on over a dozen separate occasions and why he'd not deleted the tweets he so fundamentally disagreed with.
 
ravydavygravy said:
Anyone seen Mike lately? Pretty sure he took himself of twitter after someone found loads of racist dirt on him. :lol:

Looks like his old enemies at sage are having the last laugh anyhoo.

Wonder if @Charlie Chimp has seen him?
Click to expand...

So, care to discuss the things he says or be distracted from bullshit BLM cancel culture?

I am non white and telling you all that the BLM psyops is being used to distract and nullify dissenting voices.

Please dont fall for trap.

I will be back soon. After I sort myself out.

look up great Barrington Declaration
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top